Hi,
I'm going to copy a similar like question from someone else from one of the private fee-base forums and post it below along with my reply. It's an easier way for me to explain to you why I use labels for the price action and why I use a particular sequence order of those labels involving v2 with v1 or c2 with c1. Simply, there's a very good reason why v2 occurs before v1 and why c2 occurs before c1.
Also, I'm going to add a direct link in the WRB Analysis Tutorial free study guide to your question here at the TSL Support Forum because I've noticed recently similar like questions have been asked at least once per month by a new free user or by someone that's a new fee-base client.
***** wrote:
You are correct, I find the terminology confusing...
Because its more intuitive to have numbers rising from left to right rather than the opposite (c1 first then c2)
of the WRB Analysis Tutorials and our trade signal strategies (FVB, AJCTR, APAOR, STR and VTR) are confused or curious about the sequence order of our labeling involving the
v2 ---> v1 or
c2 ---> c1 intervals because at first glance to new users it may not be intuitive. Therefore, we're going to explain the reason for such a labeling sequence of the price action.
The v1 and c1 must remain constant due to the fact there are numerous
different types of confirmation signals. Simply, if there was only one strategy and one confirmation signal...it would make sense to have number rising from left to right. However, if you become a fee-base client of TheStrategyLab.com you'll learn that there are more than ONE type of confirmation signal, more than ONE type of swing point/strong continuation price action and more than ONE type of trade signal strategy.
Simply, the v1 and c1 must remain constant to prevent interpretation problems when learning/applying one confirmation signal and then learning/applying a different confirmation signal especially when one member is explaining their price action to us while another member is able to read the same message post. We all must be one the same page in understanding the annotations on the charts. Just as important, its not uncommon for some members to talk about the price action
without chart examples even though we highly recommend to use charts. Therefore, the latter requires us to be able to visualize their price action discussion and this is when our labeling sequence becomes very important.
Lets put it this way, if everybody uses there own terminology...nobody would understand what each other was talking about nor be able to visualize it without charts due to the fact that members have access to all questions not posted within the private threads and access to all "demonstration of knowledge" (DOKs) posted by other members.
Thus, if someone says to you, to me or to another user of my WRB Analysis Tutortial chapters 1 - 12 or trade signal strategies...
Quote:
There's a v1 via strong continuation definition #2 @ 1100am est.
We'll have a good visualization of what that v1 must look like even if we don't see their chart because its not uncommon for traders to talk about their price action without a chart example even though we highly recommend they post chart examples.
With that said, the labeling of
v2 --> v1 instead of using
v1 --> v2 or
c2 --> c1 instead of using
c1 --> c2 is because the v1/c1 intervals represents the last interval within a defined type of price action and this interval must be
constant in it's labeling or annotation in all the different types of swing point, strong continuation and confirmation signal price actions that's discussed at TheStrategyLab. For example, the FVB basic strategy uses a simple two interval confirmation signal called c2/c1. In contrast, there are advance types of confirmation signal price actions discussed at the private fee-base forums that are referred to as A - H. Each confirmation signal has a different number of intervals in the price action and behave differently to each other in comparison to another type of confirmation signal. For example, confirmation A signal involves 3 intervals. In contrast, confirmation E signal involves 4 intervals. Therefore, to ensure c1 is
constant regardless to which confirmation signal was being used and discussed by clients...all of us must use c2 --> c1 sequence orientation.
Yet, lets pretend I did used c1 --> c2 instead of c2 --> c1. A discussion about confirmation A signal that involves 3 intervals...it has the following sequence of c1 --> c2 --> c3. Yet, a discussion about the confirmation B signal has the same sequence labels of c1 --> c2 --> c3 except the c3 interval interacts differently with the c2 and c1 intervals in comparison to the confirmation A signal. Yet, another comparison, the confirmation E signal has the following sequence labels of c1 --> c2 --> c3 --> c4 with a c4 interval interacting differently with its prior intervals.
Thus, is why we use labels in a specific sequence instead of the above "pretend price action" along with chart examples to ensure there's LESS misunderstandings when learning different types of confirmation signals in comparison to learning only ONE confirmation signal especially when different traders are explaining their price actions at TheStrategyLab. Therefore, we must use a c2 --> c1 sequence to ensure the c1 interval is always
constant in it's sequence so that everybody knows that the c1 interval is the actual trigger interval (most recent interval) no matter how many intervals are involved with any particular confirmation signal and regardless to how they interact with other. Simply, if I'm posting charts or other clients posting charts at any of our different forums...everybody is on the same page of understanding the charts because they know what the c1 interval is suppose to be doing and it's relationship with the prior intervals via the labels. The same is true for the v1 intervals involving volatility spike price actions. Just as important, you can visualize without a chart after you've master price action definitions or confirmation signals whenever another trader at TheStrategyLab.com talks about the price action without a chart example.
My point is if I only had ONE type of confirmation signal and ONE type of trade signal...it wouldn't matter if I used c2 --> c1 or c1 --> c2. The same is true for the v2 --> v1 or v1 --> v2. Therefore, if would be intuitive to use v1 --> v2 and c1 --> c2 interval sequence.
By the way, when I first started trading and then later shared ONLY one of my trade strategies...I did use the v1 --> v2 and c1 --> c2 labeling but immediately noticed the misunderstandings in the questions by traders when I shared more strategies (different strategies in comparison to each other) with the exact same sequence labeling of v1 --> v2 and c1 --> c2. It became such a mess, I temporarily closed the forums for several months so that I can edit all the material with the v2 --> v1 and c2 --> c1 labeling sequence. The result of misunderstandings dropped dramatically from most traders being confused to only a few traders being confused.
Best Regards,
M.A. Perry
Trader and Founder of
WRB Analysis (wide range body/bar analysis)
Price Action Trading (no technical indicators)
@
http://twitter.com/wrbtrader,
http://stocktwits.com/wrbtrader and
http://chart.ly/users/wrbtraderPhone: +1.708.572.4885
Business Hours: 8am - 5pm est (Mon - Fri)
Skype Messenger: kebec2002
questions@thestrategylab.com
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
